Obama must pick a VERY liberal woman. There are at least 4 VERY conservative justices, a regular conservative, and 4 moderates. Not a liberal among them while the population of the US is at least 30% liberal. There are 8 men and 1 woman when the population is 51% female.

So are there any VERY liberal women on the list? Mclane-Wardlaw?

That also jumped out at me as the most ludicrous, ridiculous option imaginable.

In other words he should be a front runner.

... of Clarence Thomas. Besides, he's in trouble in the polls, so gotta help him out for all the help he supposedly gave Obama in the hopey-changey messaging.

It's not just torture and executive power that should concern us about Sunstein. He also thinks Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editor...

But it shouldn't be overturned, only because of stare decisis. (Wink, wink)

was in my class at Princeton. I think she may have a lot of appeal for Obama because of her personal backstory--she's Latina, from the South Bronx, went to local Catholic high school, and then just burned down the house at Princeton--won the top academic award freshman year, and was our valedictorian. Summa cum laude. (Sigh. Yours truly was only a cum laude).

I haven't followed her career since, but the general wisdom labels her a, ahem, "centrist". That, of course, would be right up the Obama alley too.

Here,from back in 2008.

I know: an inverse proportion to how busy they weren't urging Bush, Bush, and Reagan to do the same.

Assuming that the usual white flags are already being unpacked, and that it will take at least one sacrifice before Harry finds his backbone, should the first choice be someone who all good Democrats would gladly mourn?

but if he's looking for someone from Massachusetts, he ought to take a look at this person:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_H....

And Obama would be impressed that she was appointed by 'liberal' Republicans, and she has been at the head of the line in fighting discrimination. She would be a very good liberal balance to the right wingers on the court. She would also know just how to handle the haters in the Senate who would try and shoot her down. Of course, if he were a liberal Bush, he would appoint her just to make all the conservative heads in the country explode. She has been at the head of the longest serving court in this hemisphere and has administered the oldest working constitution, written by that arch-conservtive, John Adams. She certainly deserves it and would make a fine addition to the court, and a true liberal one.

on Washington Week in Review tonight. "At his core, Obama would like to nominate a female version of himself."

Except he's declared the nominee must have a record of accomplishment, which means taking stands and, if a judge, deciding things with written opinions.

Earlier, however, Obama mused about bringing non-judge onto the SCOTUS.

So, who can tell?

Busiess is a very important aspect to evaluate in any SCOTUS nominee...since there will be many business/finance related cases making their way to up the judicial ladder. And the current court is already too enamored of Big Bidness's rights.

Abortion has never been the real issue for Republicans. For them, every justice they nominate comes with a gene that not only expresses pro-life credentials but also pro-business ones. The Lily Ledbetter case is a perfect example. The bar is set so high for the plaintiff going up against the powerhouse of the business entity that fairness is next to impossible.

Good observation, Riverdaughter aka Goldberry.